Skip to main content

About your Search

20130216
20130224
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37 (some duplicates have been removed)
differently that he didn't do, which was by having them do nothing about the military. clinton and obama and the younger bush. these four individuals made these contributions, it is no surprise that they were in the terrible situation that we find ourselves in now that has to be corrected. when we look at the george herbert walker bush administration, he had three important people at the defense department. it was based on just a tailored pattern of total deception and outright lies. they have put together a secret paper. instead of taking together a strategic opportunity the collapse of the soviet union in 1991, all of those things we didn't expect to see in a lifetime. i certainly didn't expect to see this a couple of us wrote about the problems and no one expected it to collapse like a house of cards. this opportunity you was totally not taken. it was not taken by the bush administration. there were things like the invasion of panama and one individual had been on the cia payroll for most of the time and that is a heck of a precedence to set the terms of the military. it speaks as a m
, of course we do. we have hillary clinton, you know? [laughter] she ran for president. and she is secretary of state, and we see her on the news every day. and then we have, um, you know, sarah palin was all over the place, michele bachmann, you know, these are big names. we had nancy pelosi -- we have nancy pelosi running the house. we had record gains in the senate this year. everybody's talking about how this is such an incredible, exciting election because now we have 20 senators, the most we have ever had. we have an entire state that has an all-female delegation which is new hampshire. so women are everywhere. women are everywhere in politics. and i really do think that that is what most people think. and, of course, everybody in this room knows that that is not even the slightest bit true. and, in fact, women hold 18% of the seats in congress. in the state legislatures, we've been stuck at 23% or around 23% forever. there's no movement. we used to have nine governors, we have five governors now who are women. [laughter] we have five governors who are women. and all of this places us,
hamilton's history of womanizing. for example, bill clinton was not the first, and bill clinton was not the worse when it comes to misbehavior in high office. there's a long, long history of it. and eliot spitzer, arnold schwarzenegger, david petraeus, these guys had nothing on alexander hamilton. and what we find is if you read, for example, letters by martha washington during those winter camps, she was tough. she was like a soldier. she didn't complain about the weather, the harsh conditions, but she did complain about one thing. there was a tomcat one winter that was misbehaving with all the lady can cats, and it was noisy, noisy, noisy, and it kept her awake at night, so she nicknamed the tomcat alexander hamilton. [laughter] i also did a book a few years ago called life in the white house, and it was about the presidents at ease. what did they eat? what hobbies did they have of? what are their fears and hopes? or what are they like as fathers and husbands? how did their kids turn out? as another way of assessing presidential character providing us with another lens. for ex
the sudden they change the topic to something wildly off topic. talking about fiscal clinton subtly you get electron why you hate gay people and not only do you hate gay people but here is a letter signed an stamp from ronald reagan showing that you hate gay people and you have never seen it before and don't know what they're talking about. this is completely random information. what are you saying? the answer to that is not pretend -- the initial reaction is i know what you are talking about. the human response, to the ego, i know what you are talking about, why do we deal with this? i don't know what you're talking about and if you want to talk about it, let me do the research first and we can have an educated debate from the issue. i don't discuss things i don't know about. it take off of the table immediately and if it doesn't take off of the table and they continue to press forward they look like a bully because it is the bullying tactic. you don't ask people to talk about things they don't know about. you don't ask a seventh grader to do calculus unless they are a genius at it and you
with the earthquake come as bill clinton would soon warn, or that the ground would become significantly more dangerous than it had been before the quick. the rain could be bad but it isn't usually that bad. the caribbean doesn't have a monsoon. the danger of floods and landslides would be somewhat greater when hurricane season got underway in late summer and fall, but in march there was still several months to mitigate the danger. nevertheless, after returning to near, he would expand on his concerns and washington's post, writing that the ground would soon turn to mud, dangerous, and disease. he joined the drumbeat of warnings about the approaching of the rain. aid agencies are in a race against time, read a typical press release to once again, it was as if the only way to get these groups and others to act was to great indiscriminate panic. and again, the media were not amused. when the first season rain shower hit in the corporate editors rushed me out mid-storm to come white house, the golf course. with a waterproof notebook and different and look as if i was entering the mekong delta in july. i s
. but what i can say is when i was offered this job by secretary clinton, the office had lost a competence of key players on capitol hill and others in the u.s. government. so i just produce a chance to start over anything probably a lot of what we are doing with the original conception. and i'm trying not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. probably nobody has said that since her grandmother died. so my feeling is they think the original intent was to be strategic and to have a policy influence. and then i think when it went through its middle stages a coordinator and never gain traction in the state department. so it then went into a kind of supplier of people, which i thought was too limited. so we've tried to recapture that want to be part of the conversation. we've been very fortunate to have the support for secretary clinton for the first year of our existing and now what we are finding that only been in a handful of meetings with secretary kerry, but in every one of the meanings, he has said, or bring the ideas. give me some out-of-the-box thinking. we've got to find another w
for upper-income taxpayers they're going to go back to clinton-era tax rates. but the point in trying to make with this one chart, this is the real world. the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves is not the real world. when one side believes one thing in one side believes the other, there is not much room for consequence. i will come back to white, and they should be part of how you think about this. why is it that the two sides believe such different things? why do one depend on evidence and the other on broad principles about the size of government, individual liberty, and so forth and so on. so let me -- i can do this. of want to go back to that. let me move on to the experience . i am sure -- you all understand, and i think most people agree that the signature issue for the bush of illustration, the ones that had the most consequence and the ones that will shape the bush administration's place in history, that tax cut and the invasion. so you can imagine how difficult these decisions were and with respect before going in a committing all those troops and hundreds of billions of d
're going to go back to clinton era tax rates. but the point i'm trying to make with this one chart is to say, this is the real world, and the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves is not the real world. and when one side believes one thing and one side believes the other, there's not much room for consequence. i will come back to why and this should be part of how you think about this stuff. why is it that the two sides believe such different things? why does one depend on defend -- evidence and the other on broad principles about the size of government individual accomplish so forth and so on. so let me -- i want to go back to that. and let me move on to the experience with iraq. i'm sure you all understand -- and i think most people would agree -- the signature issues for the bush administration, the ones that had the most consequence and the ones that will shape the bush administration's place in history -- were, one, the tax cuts, and, two, the invasion of iraq. so you can imagine how difficult these decisions were, and with respect to iraq, before going in and committing all t
, unquote in any way come miss rat with the earthquake, as bill clinton would warp though, ground had become significantly more dangerous or diseased than before the quake. the rain can be bad but not usually that bad. they don't have a monsoon. the danger of floods and landslides would be somewhat greater when hurricane season got underway in late summer and fall, but in march there was still several months to mitigate the danger. nevertheless, after returning to new york, ban would expand on his concerns in the washington post writing that, quote, the steep ground would soon, quote, turn to mood, dangerous and diseased. he joined a drum beat of warnings about the approaching of the rains. eight agencies are in a race against time, read a typical prerainy season press release by care. once again, it was as if the only way to get aid groups and donors to, a was to create indiscriminate panic and media were not amused. when the first decent shower hit my editors sent me out to the golf course in full weighedders waders and poncho, i looked like it was entering the mekong delta in july. now, n
proper income tax payers, they're going to go back to the clinton era tax relief. the point i am trying to make with this one chart, this is the real world and the idea tax cuts favored themselves is not the real world and when one side believes one thing and one side believes the other there's not much room for a consequence. i will come back to why and this should be how you think about this one. why is it that the two sides believed such different things? why does one depend on evidence and the other depend more on broad principles about the size of government and individual liberty and so forth and so on? let me if i can do this, let me go back and let me move on to the experience with iraq. you all understand most people would agree the signature issue for the bush administration, the one that had the most consequence and the ones that will shape the bush administration's place in history, tax cuts and invasion of iraq. you can imagine how difficult these decisions were and with respect to iraq before going in and giving hundreds of billions of dollars you can imagine it took a lot
in policy and ran successfully? >> bill clinton is the most obvious. he writes out in the 16th year he decided it is an amazing experience because people are so interested to make a difference and me involved it is the most unfortunate experience but is exhilarating to not to want to do it again. >> host: tallis about your experience. where were you? what was the primary? >> guest: 2006 democratic primary road violence second congressional district the incumbent had was there for a while and prior to that was secretary of state and he is still in congress. the main reason iran is i felt he is not representing the district on the issues and that was important we were two-thirds pro-choice and voted 27 times against that. also we authorizing a egregious provisions of the pager fact, he was not very outspoken about the of war in iraq and i thought people of rhode island were not being represented by it rarely does the establishment feel the candidate can go against someone so i felt i had to do it. i have just written by a first book so i was very aware of the limitations and because i wa
who would later ron go to work for secretary clinton to go and start thinking about did we want to even help people to use social media to democratize. so he created groups of friends, for instance people who would help overthrow terrorism and columbia who could chat with people in the middle east who were trying to deal with terrorism, as a week starting to use the social media. but i am trying to understand now read is an accelerant, it isn't the cause of the trend but it is an accelerant to read what is interesting is what is happening in the social media in china because the regime is doing everything it can to control the internet. it's terrified of the internet and in fact packing into the servers to try to find that last human rights advocate and the social media is going wild in china and the regime isn't so certain that maybe it's not a bad thing that people have a way to vent through social media so you remember the story of the girl that was run over in the streets, that exploded into the social media in china but i would say to the regime it's one thing people will j
is a couple years ago, um, i got a letter from now former president clinton writing about one of the books was someone had -- because someone had sent him one of the books, and then i got one of the craziest, best fan letters from former president george h.w. bush x. he read one of my normals, and he asked -- novels, and he asked if i would sign a copy for him. i'm like, you're the leader of the free world, you get a free book. you're the president. very nice. has me out to houston, i spend some time with the bushes, and barbara and george are like the sweetest, nicest people. they spent the first half hour that we were with them president bush tried to convince my wife that he invented the phase you the man, right? that's a good joke. and my wife's like, do you know he invented the phrase you the man? i'm like, he did not. although he might have, i don't know, he's the president. but the nice part was as i was researching this book, i got to ask president bush questions about the white house and his time there. and, listen, i write fiction. i can make up anything i want, right? but we all
they business. the real big event happened in the summer night 299 were bill clinton made a really mandatory, although it come back a few years. he said freddie mac and fannie mae has to have at least half your loans in affordable housing i.e. subprime lending. that was a dramatic announcement because of the size of freddie and fannie. a number of economists identify the risk involved in this issue and said listen, danny and freddie are so big that there's no way they can meet this goal without radically reducing lending standards in the home mortgage business. so it is not that big. if they achieve that goal, they're taking so much risk that studying for any candidate in financial trouble and they are so big they can take a couple u.s. financial system. nine years later it has been. what freddie and fannie failed, the outside trying dollars and they had $2 trillion in subprime mortgages. even before they failed, they would average 1000 to one. it would be like you having a net worth of $10,000. the only way you can do that is if the government guarantees your debt and this is something way
to eradicate coca back in the amazon. and so the last i heard was, i think it was president clinton, who said -- the dea was asking to release this fungus in the rain forest. president clinton said no at the time. the last i heard in 2007 was that they're still looking into ways of using the fungus as eradication. it sounds iffy to me, releasing a fungus into a rain forest. i think that's kind of an interesting way of seeing how these privileges are afforded to some powerful factors and not to others. i wanted to throw that in. >> i would just add real quick, first, on the brazilian fungus thing, one of the great experts on this has didn't a lot of research, is sitting in the audience. but on the question of the u.s. embassy, the u.s. embassy's own web site used to recommend to travelers in la paz to have coca tea. how many have been to la paz? it's about 13,000 feet high, and the airport, which is a plateau above the city, is even higher. so the oxygen content is 40% also at sea level. so you suffer terrible alt altitude psychness, extreme fatigue, headaches and you don't want to do anything
an interest in policy and ran for office successfully? >> guest: well, i think bill clinton is the most obvious example. um, he writes in his memoir that sometime in his 16th year he decided that politics was the real calling for him. and so at that point he became very cognizant of the idea that he wanted to run, and he began looking for electoral opportunities. so when he was in his open 20s and there was an open congressional seat in arkansas, he figured that was a good time to throw his hat into the ring. and he thought even if he lost that race, there would still be a good shot, that he would perform well enough not to ruin his political career. and sure enough, he lost the race, but he ultimately ran for attorney general and won, he game governor and then, obviously, president. >> host: so if somebody loses their first race, how much of a turnoff is that to them? >> guest: i don't think it's that much of a turnoff. that's not my major focus of research, i'm interest inside why people do it in the first place. i ran for congress. i ran in rhode island's 2nd congressional district i
are william jefferson clinton come extremely popular yourself, you are in trouble with the public and the congress is in the process of falling to republicans. do the right they never wanted to set and a small and cheap for us to strike down the genocide or alternatively, do you forego justice and preserve your own political position by instead staying out of rwanda and remembering the public was still pretty mad about the debacle in somalia. that question answers itself, just as traded off against each other. >> host: what about the book? >> guest: b.c. an extraordinary black-and-white struggle. this is not for people who like shades of gray in the third three treacherous villains. at the same time the response in the penultimate struggle between good and evil, they are entrenching characters who have twists and turns and then benefit wanted to concentrate on someone, probably the race place to start is column/spiegel, the most interesting and asset character in the book. >> host: let's address a black-and-white issue because this is the case for scholars like me, we want to get
the president and others. another chapter discusses hamilton's history of womanizing. bill clinton was not the first and he's not the worst. john edwards, these guys, they have nothing on alexander hamilton. we'll be fine, he said. she didn't complain about one thing. [inaudible] i did read a book called life in the white house, and it was about the president at ease. what are their fears and hopes and what are they like as fathers and husbands. another way of providing us a glimpse into presidential character. he sometimes wore a black suit to do this. the affairs of state, i have tried to take a different perspective. we all know about george washington. we study washington with brilliant and delaware on christmas night during the revolution. we find that the teenage washington, on more than one occasion, basically goes back home in fear because he puts pen to paper and he writes. he once wrote a poem in yet another girl turned him down. we all understand and know that our country's leaders have been shaped by the hand of a woman, often the mother, and i'm here to tell you that s
primary vote was more in sync than senator clinton was for the democratic party base, and she obviously senator santorum didn't have the formidable apparatus, he didn't have the body weight -- >> do you think if santorum had had perry's early money it's a different -- >> well, i think it's -- what do we know about the republican party? it's increasingly evangelical, southern and populist. what do we know about mitt romney? [laughter] i think that is a testament to his political skill, that he didn't begin this with a natural, geographical or ideological base. and yet he was able particularly in those debates through, i think, sheer political skill to -- taking positions that in many cases people disagreed with. like health care. but to convince the republican party that he had the qualities that they wanted to be their nominee. >> what would you gees seeing in your -- you gees seeing in your debates where every year it was the new whack-a-mole, conservative challenger. so we went from perry to herman cain next? herman cain was next, right? in that sort of moment, and then he blew up at
they didn't support the surge in iraq, get after hillary clinton. she voted against the surge. get after barack obama, he voted against the surge. get after the entire joint chiefs of staff at the time. they were all against the surge. and you can make the case that the surge worked in a tactical way. it still hasn't worked in its ultimate, strategic objectives for reasons that i discussed, and in the meantime, it did cost a lot of money and probably, you know, a thousand extra american soldiers died in the implementation of that surge compared with if you just pulled them out. was that worth it? i don't know. i don't know. we don't know yet. but it's not, it is not a clear-cut fact that the surge worked and we won and that sort of thing. as for the jewish lobby question, i mean, you know, let's get real. the israeli press, i mean, i'm jewish. the israeli press refers to aipac as the jewish lobby. okay, it's a little -- and, you know, aipac has had this thing going for years where anybody who criticizes israel, they say, oh, well, you're anti-semitic. you're really talking about jews, yo
. and so the last i heard was, i think with president clinton who, who said, the dea was asking to release this fungus into the rain forest. president clinton said no, at the time. the last i heard in 2007 was that they're still looking into ways of using this fungus as an eradication method. it sounds kind of iffy, releasing a fungus into a rain forest. but yeah, i just think that's an interesting way of seeing how these privileges are afforded some powerful factors and not to others. i just want to throw that in. >> i would just add real quick, first on the fungus thing. one of the great experts in this town, jeremy who is sitting in the audience who has done research on this issue, perhaps we can talk later, jeremy, but on the question of u.s. embassy, the u.s. embassy's own website used to recommend to travelers landing to have coca tea. it's a no-brainer. la paz, how may people have been too low cost? it's about 13,000 feet high. and the airport, a plateau above the city is even higher. so your oxygen content at that altitude is about 40% of which would have at sea level. so you suffe
. about 1998. president clinton launched tomahawk missiles based on the embassies blown up in a staffer cut and launched tomahawks into this again and in east afghanistan. they hit targets. if you asked any of us in the room the next morning whether america was at work, i trust all of us would've said no. we fired some tomahawk missiles, but we are not at war. if you ask people in it the impact of this tomahawk missiles, they have a different view. so the danger it can potentially lower willingness to use force and not conservatives were and yet you build up enemies. keep other people who think they are at war with you. when did al qaeda go to war with the united states? the average answer is 9/11. al qaeda declared war against the united states in 1996. most of us didn't get the memo. but they attacked the cole, attacked east africa. the report says. as a danger when one side is how bored any other is an outworn both ways. the danger about this technology is that. anytime you can sit back and safety and do something for somebody else, you don't necessarily feel now. if your son or daug
is that when i was offered this job by secretary clinton, the prior office had lost the confidence of key players on capitol hill and others in the u.s. government. so i just thought it was a chance to start over. and i think that probably a lot of what we are doing was originally -- was in the original conception. and we've tried -- i'm trying not to throw the baby with the bathwater, probably nobody said that since the grandmother died, right? i don't know why that phrase came up. >> perfectly good phrase. >> so my feeling is that i think the original intent was to be strategic and to have a policy influence. and didn't i think when it went through its middle stages as a coordinator it had lost, it never gained traction in the state department. and so then went into a kind of a supplier of people come which i thought was too limited. so we try to recapture that and want to be part of a policy conversation. we've been very fortunate to have a dynamic support of secretary clinton for the first year of our existence. and now what we're finding is, i've only been in a handful of meetings wi
. finally it was clinton who made nature of the commission. >> carter appointed me when i left his education. he appointed me to the commission. >> host: at what point did it become clear that agency would become permanent in a sense? >> guest: after the first year when the report stated, with the commission did with instead of sitting down and saying okay, they did some hearings. the major powers the commission hide a point not in the book continues the most important thing about the commission. it will go out and listen to people that nobody else will listen to you. the civil rights problems people had said they could not get anyone to pay attention. not just local people, but the federal government. they would write letters and nobody would pay attention. the civil rights commission decided. listen to these people and see what they have to say and they have the power of the statue to subpoena anyone. eisenhower said the reason i want to get it passed by congress is because my attorney general tells me that's the only way they can subpoena anybody. given what the problems are, some people
primary dollars. >> you guys had the luxury near primary were you had these clinton donors who have never given money. and suddenly they could max out to you for the first time. >> the biggest difference is they had someone who is not going to take further financing versus mccain who was a setback if you need the ability to write unlimited money. >> which are primary site -- there is nobody who had a fundraising list. is that fair to say, not? >> there were some. >> so our theories are in the spirit that i know these guys made the decision to spend money early. that's the power of the comments. so during the period where we face this challenge, we did a few things and so we used the money we are raising and big chunks and high bar indeed be independent expenditure, which that probably occurred to me that timetable up. the other thing going on were super pacs and at that moment would be a lot of super pac activity. but we needed the super pacs and also during the period, the governor signed off on a $20 million love that allowed us to use primary money to pay back the general money. and so
to understand creates a lot of resentment on people. president clinton in 1998 launched tomahawk missiles based on the embassies that were blown up in east africa. and they hit targets, and if you had asked any of us in this room the next morning whether america was at war, i trust that all this would've said no. we fired some missiles, but we are not at war. if you would ask people near the impact, they would have a different view. so the danger is that could potentially lower the willingness to use force and not think of it as war. and yet you build up enemies and people that think they are at war with you. when did al qaeda go to war with the united states? the average answer is 9/11. but they declared war with us in 1996. most of us did not get the memo. they attacked and they were at war with us. there is always danger in both ways. the danger of all the technology is that tiger has the same potential. anytime you can sit back and in relative safety and do something with someone off, you don't necessarily feel that if your son or daughter was going into the target area and you were going t
.s. diplomat in the canadian capital during the clinton administration. john manly is the chief exhibit of the council's chief executives. you can't get much more execs than that. he's a former prime minister of finance, foreign affairs and trade and industry. he led the response to the 9/11 attacks and chaired the independent task force on the future of north america david is with the national security program at the center for strategic international studies here in washington and a former senior official of the u.s. energy department and was involved in negotiations for the u.s.-canada free trade agreement and the north american free trade agreement. and rita savage is the bureau chief. in a moment our conversation begins we will hear from all of our guests on the stage and also from our studio audience a little bit later. first let's take the next five minutes and bring some context to the conversation. >> of almost every level, the u.s.-canada relationship though occasionally up by the storm is the envy of the world. integrated industries and economies, the world's largest trade mo
. clinton was president, the republicans mainly were running congress when we had things like nafta, china most favored nation status, the wto, the world trade organization, all of these trade deals people claimed were going to bring jobs to the united states, and in every case the jobs left.
in 1996 at the beginning of the president's first term, president clinton's first term, is now is the opportune time. so what we need to do as americans is to quit complaining and push these guys to make a compromise they have to make in order to get something real done that put our fiscal house in order spent as erskine said, he spent hours, and days, in his work as the last person to balance the budget in the united states by working with newt gingrich and dick armey. he often says you only one, but i don't -- but he's that kind of savvy, mr. steady. and if he can't, if you can't, and i admire him deeply, watched him, he's a tremendous man, he's the best of the best, if he with his skill and negotiating skills can't get us there, it won't get there. and the markets will do the shot. and they don't care a whit about who is president or they don't care a whit about democrats or a whit about republicans. they care about their money. and if anybody can't figure that out, you know, you have a rock for brains. >> you have the last word here. >> i don't want it to. [laughter] >> whe
. he can in one time and took almost a year in the clinton administration if you recall that period of time. so, we may be under a different watch for a while of the chairman were to. >> you've watched the commission over the years. how would you characterize some of the changes that have gone on in just how the commission operates in the relationship among the tension how would you characterize the change of the commission over the past ten, 20 years? >> as far as collegiality goes it does vary between the administration and between i think the chairman who set the stage. i think to his credit the commissioners while they are quite split on their philosophy, there - three philosophy i think they all get along personally well and it's to their credit. i don't see any major sports that way. i think if people seem to -- they are adults over there and i think that is relatively good. i do see a lot of differences the commission and by regulated and the one today in the sense of the communications have become so important and you do have the open meeting and they are not able to talk. y
your time back in the state department in the clinton years you were involved in some early efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. i don't know if you have any perspective on less sorns learned -- lessons learned in the approach tried then. >> i think we made a number of mistakes. it was me at least in part. what did we really learn? i think the most important lesson from kyoto is you can not negotiate a treaty unless you're prepared to do stuff at home to meet the requirements. and i think, it wasn't enough thinking that went into what it is that the u.s. was prepared to do domestically before kyoto was negotiated. and then of course we had other reasons it was never submitted to the senate and so on and so on. i think, we were great at the negotiation but it really didn't mean anything because we didn't have a program here to actually get it implemented. the other, the other lesson, and, again, i'm partly the problem here. is that, we had just sort of come off the montreal protocol which i think was a very successful international agreement. and we thought we should model a cli
, and on the 28th of may, 1998, there was a white house meeting with president clinton and sandy beggar. just -- berger. just as they were about to go into berger's office, they received word of a major counteroffensive that had been launched by yugoslav armed forces, by serbian armed forces which during that spring and summer displaced 200,000 people. with winter approaching, early winter in kosovo that year, tony blair gave an impassioned speech to the security council calling for action. as a follow-up to that on the 24th of september, fay toe approved -- nato approved an activation warning, and one week later it approved an activation request which is the next step in forced generation for nato military action. on the 10th of october at the business lounge of heathrow airport, holbrooke met with the contact group. this was an informal body of diplomats from the u.s., the u.k., france, italy, russia and germany. and with foreign minister igor ivanov's endorsement, nato issued an activation order which is one step short of combat, of authorizing combat operations. with that act in hand, mil
with and president clinton. we balanced the budget five of those 14 years. it meant that there was compromise. this requires compromise. this requires the republicans stepping forward with some ideas about how to keep essential services of the government running at the level people have been accustomed to. this is not rocket science. this is people coming together the way that other congresses have done to solve big issues. i suggest that my former colleague on the republican side, go see the movie " "lincoln," because it shows how hard it was back then to get it done. what he did is he gathered people around him in a way i believe president obama is doing by calling republicans, talking to them, trying to work with them, and when that happens, big things get solved. the fiscal cliff got solved because people started talking to one another. >>> up next assistant secretary of state discusses u.s. foreign policy efforts to improve conflict prevention and addressing crises. the secretary of the newly created state department team responsible for the government's role of countries and conflict in
to arthur's face. finally it was clinton who made me to share thet commission. >> host: president carter appointed you? co >> guest: carter appointed me in the new department oftion. education.he a web-based teaching and he appointed me to the commission. >> host: up a point did it become clear to be a?ncy d >> guest: after the first year? when the reports they did, what the commission did with that iso sitting down and saying we aref just here. they did some hearings. the nature and power thers the commission has been appointed from the boat and to me is theii most important thing about the commission. but it's supposed to do is go outte and listen to what no onel else will listen to. to civil rights problems people hae that they could not get anyone to pay attention.not jus not just local people, but the federal government.vernm they would write letters, nobody would pay attention. the civil rights people decided they would listen to people and see if they had to say i had th power of the statute to subpoena anyone. eisenhower said the reason i t nt to get it passed congress e and said
with the internet. when bill clinton and i went into the white house in 1993, there were 50 sites on the worldwide web. now there's a trillion of them. look at what happened to newspaper all over the world. dallas part of -- that's part of the breakdown of the old pattern, but now we have facebook, twitter, and it keeps going. i spent time in silicon valley, and there's 20 # new companies out there that reached a ball dollar evaluation just in the last year and a half. our world is changing dramatically, some of the old is breaking down, and fading away and dispating, but the new patterns are quite complex and challenging and they bring a lot of changes. these six drivers of global change are all emergent changes. they have been building up for awhile, and now they are all kind of happening statement. let's take them one by one. number one, chapter one. earth inc, a new interconnected, global economy that operates as if it is a single entity. we've been seeing the outsourcing of jobs, and we've been seeing the connection of the supply side, and now we have virtual factories with supply lines runni
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37 (some duplicates have been removed)